@kdthrge: "<url> The false science of AGW as propounded by Sir Phil of Shit. <url> kd ;> Bunch of false shit when one considers that the arbitrary assigment of ;> albedo is used. Albedo must refer to reflected light. It is insane to ;> say that this applies to all energy from the sun. The sun radiates a ;> considerable amount of energy in the infrareds. A substance at even ;> very low temperatures produces some radiation up to about 2-3um. If an ;> object radiates in a particular frequency, it does not reflect this ;> frequency. The visible frequencies are the only ones that the air is ;> truely transparent to and which are reflected. spos Usual Deatherage bullshit, Albedo is measured as an integral over all incident frequencies (typically 0.30-0.31). Examples of instruments used: <url> Plots of actual data: <url> ;> Albedo must not change with temperature. Does a white surface get ;> brighter at higher temperature? The factor of albedo is derived soley ;> by the needs of AGW to support their false conclusion of human effect ;> on temperature. ;> What about the bands of 2.7 and 4.2 um in which the solar constant has ;> a considerable amount of energy? Are these equally reflected as the ;> factor of albedo that is used suggests. This fact is also hidden by ;> the fraudists of AGW. spos The fraud's all yours, according to you the CO2 band at 15 micron constitutes a small fraction of the earth's radiation whereas 2.7 and 4.2 constitute a considerable amount of solar energy! It's about time you recalibrated your Stefan-Boltzmann calculator. Only 6% of solar above 2 microns whereas 49% is above 14 microns for S- B at 280K, use this calculator if you like: <url> . ;> The evalution of albedo must begin with the amount of solar energy ;> recieved in a collector at solar noon at the equator under optimal ;> conditions. Only with this intitial fact, can determnination of the ;> portion of energy that is reflected be started. But this basic fact is ;> entirely hidden also. spos No, this tells you nothing about how much is reflected. Where it starts is measuring the shortwave radiation from the sun above the atmosphere, then measuring the shortwave reflected from the earth, the ratio gives you the albedo. This information is freely available as is the data on the instruments used including those I've quoted above. ;> Phil of Shit's statement here will be, "these values are measured and ;> agreed upon" which he will make without any supportive analyses. No Deatherage I give supporting data and references, you on the other hand continue to spew your unsupported rhetoric, fantasies and abuse ============ So if you measure the 'shortwave' above the earth and then measure the 'shortwave which is reflected', why do you integrate over all frequencies??? Answer, in order to perpetrate your fraud with false numbers. Sir Phil is wrong and his references are wrong in these calculations. Simply to divide by Planck's constant is not using Planck's radiation law or his theory. Energy is a quantity. According to Planck, the energy of radiation is always in integral multiples, (whole values) of his constant ' h '. Therefore one has 1 x h,,, 2 x h,,, 3 x h,,,, No intermediate values. This means that it is not valid to integrate wavelengths, since a continuum does not exist in wavelength and improper values are obtained. This is only relevant when using frequency. Planck's constant is a value in ergs per second. When multiplied by frequency which is in cycles per second, it denotes a specific quantity or packet of energy which is unchanging, or a packet of energy as also described by Einstein, as a photon. The evidence of this is in the photoelectric effect. The wafers of photovaltic cells are partly composed of alkali metals which have low ionization potential. Only when photons are absorbed which have energy higher than this ionization potential, are electrons liberated. The energy of their motion in being ejected, is directly related to the energy of the photons. One electron is ejected for each photon. If the flux, (brightness), of the light is increased while kept at the same frequency or color, a greater number of electrons are ejected, but have the same energy. This is the means that Planck's theory is able to properly quantify emissions and to portray a graph which show relative energy at each frequency. This proper graph in frequency has area beneath the curve that is proportional to total energy as Stefan's Law. The frequency at which highest intensity of energy is produced is according to Wiens Law. This frequency displaces towards the ultraviolet as a direct proportion to temperature. Therefore this is always , 4.95kT / h . Which is also .2898cm / T. So at 300K, the frequency at which most energy is transmitted is 9.66um. The intensity of radiation on a proper Planck graph, which is taken from direct experimental data, increases very nearly as a square to frequency. Therefore at around 300K, the intensity at 10um is 2.25 times greater than the wmiller@example.net. This puts the energy at 15um out of the band around 10um of the earth's radiation. Sir Phil is invalid. His references are invalid. His school of theory is invalid. The graphs created used and believed by this school are invalid. These facts can be directly proved. This simple math and direct experimental data on the relative energy at each frequency proves Sir Phil to be invalid and his references here to be invalid. There is no need for the false qualifications used at his reference. One only needs a graph in frequency and the actual energy at each frequency. See Planck's Radiation Law, Max Born, 'Atomic Physics'. Available from any bookseller. Max Born was a very prominent German physicist and a contemporary of Planck and Einstein, with whom he discussed personally. He was Heisenberg's mentor out of college and is credited with some of the early development in quantum mechanics. His interpretation of Planck's Law as recorded in his book, are much more correct than Sir Phil's rhetoric which is not based upon any physical science. Sir Phil's numbers for the energy radiated by the sun in the infrared are a total joke. The sun does radiate most of it's energy in the visible. This does not mean it does not radiate in the infrared. In all Planck curves, as temperature increases, the intensity maximum shifts according to Wiens Law. But the intensity in all frequencies increases also. The sun is at 93 million miles. At it's surface it radiates at about 6000K and at about 60,000,000Wm-2. At the distance to the earth due to the inverse square law, this energy is diminished to 1370Wm-2. This is still much more energy than the earth's radiation. 50% of the solar constant of 1370Wm-2 is in the visible, 9% in the ultraviolet, and 41% in the infrareds. This is about 570Wm-2 in the infrared. In relative energy, the solar constant has more energy in frequencies up to about 7um than the radiation of the earth for it's temperature. KDeatherage" @felton: "<quote> No moron, you perpetuate your fraud by false quotations, go back and read what I actually said idiot! You have this completely wrong, light is packaged into photons with energy h*nu, frequency (nu) and wavelength are both continuous. Irrelevant waffling snipped. Get it straight Deatherage that's a wavelength not a frequency! No it doesn't! Perhaps you've got your frequencies and wavelengths mixed up again? No it isn't! Try plotting it on here: <url> The ratio is about 0.67 for 10um/15um. Check out the graph above, you're way off! Well you've failed to do so far, 'my school' at you put it consists of the world's physicists and chemists, it appears that the school of house builders disagrees with us! OK Deatherage how about you produce one of those graphs showing this, why should I be the one producing all the data? If it's so easy to show one, put up or shut up! And I'm sure he's spinning in his grave Indeed but do the calculations Deatherage, only 6% above 2 microns. No it isn't, the earth's radiation is approximately equal to the incident solar radiation (if it was much less as you assert we'd be cooking)! 50% of the solar constant of 1370Wm-2 is in the visible, 9% Not a chance on this planet!" @kdthrge: "<quote> """Where it starts is measuring the shortwave radiation from the sun above the atmosphere, then measuring the shortwave reflected from the earth, the ratio gives you the albedo."""" """"""Albedo is measured as an integral over all incident frequencies (typically 0.30-0.31).""""" Here are your two statements. The measured value is of visible light from the sun and reflected from the earth. Then you integrate over all incident frequencies. The fact is that all substances radiate some energy up to about 2um even at low temperatures. Only as temperatures begin to get very high does this increase into the near infrared and visible. So therefore any reading in these frequencies will change depending upon temperature. In fact if these frequencies are radiated, they are also absorbed, meaning your calculation for albedo is false. The graphs of lower temperatures as they increase, increase according to Stefan's law, but they increase near to the center of the graph as the intenisty maximum shifts towards the ultaviolet. These graphs of lower temperatures follow the normal graph in which intensity increases as a square to the frequency. In these, intensity maximum is also increasing also near to a square to the frequency. At higher temperatures this is not true. The slope is still a square to the frequency, but the intensity maximum does not increase as a square to the frequency. The band of main energy distribution, (between hv is much less than kT, and hv is much more than kT) broadens instead of increasing so much in heigth as it does at lower temperatures. This is what required Planck's Radiation Law. The Releigh radiation law, 8piv^2, kT, works fine at lower temperatures such as earth temperature. This clearly indicates a distribution in which v^2 describes the slope to the frequency maximum. Here you deny the basic facts of Planck's Radiation Law and the fundamental principle he stated which is the basis for all modern quantum theory and quantum mechanics. The continous spectra of radiation is only in intervals of whole values of hv. This makes it impossible to use integration as you do with wavelengths and energy. All values are not present. If in converting to wavelength the formula is c / frequency, it is only possible to have the values of 2.99E10cm ,,,,divided by 2,,,, divided by 3,,, NO INTERMEDIATE VALUES. Integrating wavelength is invalid. In fact in using Planck's radiation law, one no longer integrates. The energy is always a sum of hv, not an integral. If you do not agree with this, you can only quit using Planck's constant and any reference to Planck since you entirely deny his theory and Radiation Law. That is of course what you are doing. You have returned to the classical physics before Planck form which your bogus grenhouse theory was derived. Good luck up shit creek with your fake paddle. Planck's hypothesis is ' each spectral line originates from an electron oscillator of specific energy hv'. This says that the electrons of a molecule are an oscillator that radiates equeivelent to the radiation it recieves. This oscillator can only be in whole values of h which is denoted by hv. Very relevant points that describe that each photon has a specific quantity of energy. The visible frequencies are produced when energy levels are near to ionization. Therefore visible frequencies exist easily that are higher than the ionization potential of the akali's. Potassium has the ionizatin potential of about 5.49 electron volts. Easy to find visible photons with this energy. Photons with less than this energy, cannot ionize or liberate an electron. Like I don't know that, mr, sighunteest. c / v = wavelength,, c / wavelength = frequency or v I only use um as a standard reference easier see relative values. Here you are wrong or a dedicated liar. Have you forgotten that direct analyses of this can be done?? Both Planck's radiation Law and Releigh radiation law describe this. I guess this was when the 'sighunteests' actually had to refer to direct experimental data instead of merely repeating and refering their communal invalidity as you do today and still refer to yourself as a 'scientist' instead of a disciple of strange world of imaginary physical science and rhetoric. The sighunteest is working his way up shit creek with no paddle. It is you who wish to modify our life without any direct reference to scientific data. I notice how you do not like the fact that Wiens Law is 4.95kT / h . Since this does not fit with the fake little graphs you assholes like to spend all of your time sitting around contstructing and mental masturbating to. <url> Does this graph show only 6% above 2um ?? I know your freaks have control over almost all the internet and education with your fascist and insane determination to make your fraudulent science work, but your abiltiy to mass together and shout down valid science will not save you in the end. Notice in this graph that the sun radiates according to "BLACKBODY' The sun is entirely gaseous also. What happened to your inventions of greybody and your continued insistence that gases do not radiate according to Planck's Radiation Law, which a charlatan such as yourself refers to as the "Planck function". 1370Wm-2 causes a surface that absorbs it to reach the temperature of 121C. The earth does not radiate near to this temperature. The important thing about the rating in Wm-2 is that it gives you the density of the radition field as the quantity of radiation energy passing through the plane of 1 sq meter in 1 sec, at the velocity of light, and of which this energy diminshes as an inverse square to distance. You here are on the hook. You claim that my figures here are wrong. Then please give reference to any scientific source that will state their reputaions upon direct scientific measurements of the values that you claim. You dishonest and ass sucking pricks will be held accountable for your lies. Your attempt at communal dishonesty will fail you at some point and I hope will drop you into the abyss of hell. KDeatherage" @columbiaaccidentinvestigation: "<url> Maybe you should see the following links which discuss real up to date measurments of our planet, from the MODIS compiled data onboard the Aqua and Terra satellites MODIS <url> "MODIS Hardware Information Instrument Characteristics The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), is an imaging radiometer employing multiple in-track detectors and a cross- track scan mirror and collecting optics, and a set of individual detector elements which will provide imagery of the Earth's surface and cloud cover in 36 discrete spectral bands. Contiguous scan swaths of 2330km in cross-track by 10km in-track are acquired to provide 2- day repeat observations of the Earth. Its task is to develop a detailed understanding of the Earth and the dynamics of global change. MODIS is the keystone instrument on the Terra mission, launched on 18 December 1999, and also on the Aqua mission, scheduled to be launched in April, 2002. The EOS Project is designed to collect data for 15 years in order to differentiate short-term and long-term trends, as well as, regional and global phenomena." MOTIS data <url> "Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center Active New V005 Name for MODIS BRDF/Albedo Products Unlike MODIS V004 MOD43, the V005 BRDF, Albedo, and NBAR products are known as MCD43. Both Terra and Aqua data are used in the generation of the new V005 products, providing the highest probability for quality input data and designating them as "MCD," meaning "Combined," products. Goddard Space Flight Facility MODIS land surface reflectance <url> Surface reflectance The surface reflectance product is the input for product generation for several of the land products: Vegetation Indices (VIs), BRDF, Thermal Anomalies, Landcover, Snow/Ice Cover, and LAI/Fpar. It is an estimate of the surface spectral reflectance for each band as it would have been measured at ground level if there were no atmospheric scattering or absorption." Validation of MODIS data from Aqua and Terra <url> "IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 44, NO. 6, JUNE 2006 1555 Validation of the MODIS Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function and Albedo Retrievals Using Combined Observations From the Aqua and Terra Platforms Jonathan G. Salomon, Member, IEEE, Crystal B. Schaaf, Member, IEEE, Alan H. Strahler, Member, IEEE, Feng Gao, Member, IEEE, and Yufang Jin Abstract-We evaluate the performance of the MODerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF)/Albedo algorithm using observations from MODIS instruments aboard NASA's Terra (EOS AM-1) and Aqua (EOS PM-1) platforms. This "combined" albedo product is evaluated against continuous field measurements from SURFace RADiation Budget Network (SURFRAD) and Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Southern Great Plains (ARM/SGP) stations, and through an internal analysis of the product's quality assurance (QA) fields. The combined product is compared to the initial MODIS albedo product, which used observations from the Terra satellite only. During the spring and summer months, the combined product showed a slight improvement over the original Terra-only albedo product, with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.0130 and a bias of about 0 02. As with the Terra-only product, accuracy drops during the fall and winter months at some sites. Jin et al. found that increased heterogeneity of validation sites during the fall and winter winter months is partially responsible for this drop in accuracy."" @kdthrge: ". <quote> There is absolutely nothing wrong with this paragraph Phil of Shit. The earth at it''s temperature radiates virtually no wmiller@example.net. The sun does. Your extreme effort to pretend that there is no energy from the wmiller@example.net or 4.2um is in line with your twisted physics, math and obsession with your entirely mentlally fabricated and invalid graphs. Of course this is not significant solar radiation, but it does exist and you entirely try to ignore this and the fact of the spectroscopic bands of CO2 that would reduce this solar radiation from reaching the surface according to your theories on transparency of gases and the saturated molecular bands. The graph I refered shows a considerable amount of solar energy which is absorbed. Beginning near 1um. What is shown as solar energy reaching the surface is actually reradiated atmospheric radiation. Most of this occurs within the lower atmosphere. 3/4 of the atmosphere is within 8 kilometers of the surface and air pressure is 1/2 at 6 kilometers. Remember even the tenent of your false theory which says the atmosphere radiates 324Wm-2 averaged over the area of the surface of the earth and that the sun only radiates 168Wm-2 for this average. So where is your accounting for the atmospheric radiation in this graph particulary done upon atmospheric absorption?? So this shows that the atmosphere is opaque from about 1um. These infrareds are absorbed and re-emitted. In this analsyses, there is no valid claim that the grenhouse gases are increasing temperautre of the atmosphere. The surface temperatures in direct sunlight are clearly a product of the radiation recieved. NOT a product of the lower frequencies near 15um that are trapped and which ARE NOT in a significant region of earth's radiation which is centered near 10um. Where is your accounting of the absorption in the near infrared and even in the visible in your accounting of albedo. Nowhere because it does not support your false end conclusion. Near infrared is to 1um. Mid infrared is 1 - 2 um. Far infrared and thermal frequencies are 2-30um. Although you jerks continually try to rewrite any science in order to promote your fraud and obsession with controlling other peoples lives. KDeatherage The AGW Bunnies, Beating on their little drum,,, They keep going,,, and going,,,," @kdthrge: "On Sep 22, 2:15 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <quote> ;> Maybe you should see the following links which discuss real up to date ;> measurments of our planet, from the MODIS compiled data onboard the ;> Aqua and Terra satellites Here is a more detailed account of the methodology. <url> Notice the definition of albedo that is used in order to achieve the calculation needed of 240W-2. No accounting for absorption by the atmophere. Even visible light does not all pass through the atmophere without a portion being absorbed. Theoretical manipulation. So thanks for the references to these embezzlers of public funding who are spending this money without any interest in validity or any proper scientific discovery. This should all be properly noted, along with their complicity in the continuing crime of supporting the fraudulent theoretical basis for the implementation of laws based upon this incomplete and invalid scientific postulation. KDeatherage The AGW bunnies, Beating their little drum,,, They keep going,,, and going,,," @columbiaaccidentinvestigation: "On Sep 22, 3:56 pm, <email_address> wrote:" No accounting for absorption by the atmophere. Even visible light does not all pass through the atmophere without a portion being absorbed. Theoretical manipulation. So thanks for the references to these embezzlers of public funding who are spending this money without any interest in validity or any proper scientific discovery." laughing, you think you made a point, youre a joke, as your spenvis link is ESA's program (spenvis 2003 page), not NASA's MODIS data gathered and observed from the aqua and terra satelites, so you just compared two different programs, claimed yourself correct and hopped away, dud your joke of a joke of a joke.... MODIS <url> "MODIS Hardware Information Instrument Characteristics The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), is an imaging radiometer employing multiple in-track detectors and a cross- track scan mirror and collecting optics, and a set of individual detector elements which will provide imagery of the Earth's surface and cloud cover in 36 discrete spectral bands. Contiguous scan swaths of 2330km in cross-track by 10km in-track are acquired to provide 2- day repeat observations of the Earth. Its task is to develop a detailed understanding of the Earth and the dynamics of global change. MODIS is the keystone instrument on the Terra mission, launched on 18 December 1999, and also on the Aqua mission, scheduled to be launched in April, 2002. The EOS Project is designed to collect data for 15 years in order to differentiate short-term and long-term trends, as well as, regional and global phenomena." MOTIS data <url> "Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center Active New V005 Name for MODIS BRDF/Albedo Products Unlike MODIS V004 MOD43, the V005 BRDF, Albedo, and NBAR products are known as MCD43. Both Terra and Aqua data are used in the generation of the new V005 products, providing the highest probability for quality input data and designating them as "MCD," meaning "Combined," Goddard Space Flight Facility MODIS land surface reflectance <url> Surface reflectance The surface reflectance product is the input for product generation for several of the land products: Vegetation Indices (VIs), BRDF, Thermal Anomalies, Landcover, Snow/Ice Cover, and LAI/Fpar. It is an estimate of the surface spectral reflectance for each band as it would have been measured at ground level if there were no atmospheric scattering or absorption." <url> A Comparison between MODIS-Derived Spatially Complete and Validated Surface Albedo Products: Spatial and Temporal Pixel Distribution and Zonal Averages ERIC G. MOODY,*MICHAEL D. KING,+ CRYSTAL B. SCHAAF,# AND STEVEN PLATNICK+ *RS Information Systems, Inc., Lanham, Maryland +Earth Sciences Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland #Center for Remote Sensing, Department of Geography, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology (Manuscript submitted May 21, 2007) _______________________ Corresponding author address: Eric G. Moody, RS Information Systems, Inc., Lanham, MD 20706 USA. E-mail: <email_address> Validation of MODIS data from Aqua and Terra <url>" @kdthrge: ". <quote> In the meantime Sir Phil of Shit, you should look up the definition of 'FRAUD'. Although I know how you overgrown brats enjoy perverting the definitions of virtually every word or term that you use. Nothing I am doing here can be defined as fraud. I am recieving no money, I am not soliciting any money, nor am I proposing false facts or omitting pertinent facts, in order to promote any passage of laws to affect society or infliction of any effect in the exchange of any money in any way. However those that accept public money as they accept their status as 'scientists', and who promote false facts or conclusions can be construed to be guilty of fraud or the intent to commit fraud. This can likewise be assesed if they are only ignorant of the truth, because they are stating directly that they are competent with their pronuciation of their false conclusions and the severity of their false conclusions should be sef evident for which they should recheck their data, methodology and conclusions over and over. This should apply to the fraud perpetrated by J Hansen at NASA which should be definetly investigated as criminal intent since it is clearly evident the effect his inability to validly apply his corrections to later temperature data promoted a considerably repeated and false statement that temperature records showed a considerable and unusual warming trend, which is not shown with accurate rendering of his statistics. In his position he should be prosecuted for this deliberate and consious fraudulent rendering of data and conclusions, which has been proved and accepted by himself. This fraud can be defined in testimony to the government and in use of public funding for what can be proved to be false theoretical interpretation and not actual science. This liability should also apply to civil liability for the effects of this fraudulent rendering of conlculsions has on any individuals. The level of these crimes can easily escalate to the level of crimes against humanity. KDeatherage CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney." @columbiaaccidentinvestigation: "<quote> i noticed you still didnt address modis data, your accusations are a joke, and your fallacies in the above post are an even bigger joke, now put you mouth were your fingers are, and if you realy believe such accusations, you should take them up with your state and federal representatives, senators, then ask the white house take action, but i doubt you will, and instead you will make accustions that should be flushed down....." @kdthrge: "On Sep 22, 7:26 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <quote> Facts are facts. Only visible light can be accurately measured as reflected since the earth does not emit in these frequencies. Consideration of atmospheric absorption is crucial to evaluation of albedo. The value of .31 that is used in order to derive the values of 'energy imbalance' is entirely subjective and not based upon direct science. It is clearly invalid to apply this value to all energy from the sun. The charlatan's of AGW will face reckoning for their perpetrated fraud at some point. KD" @columbiaaccidentinvestigation: "<quote> have you researched all of the current earth observing satelites, subsequent products, and cross referenced that information in reaching such a conclusion?" @kdthrge: "On Sep 23, 2:21 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <quote> Well it's easy to see you are alot like Sir Phil, Sir Phil enjoys life with his head up his ass, And you enjoy life with your head up his ass, It is clearly stated in basic grenhouse theory that the incoming solar constant divided by 4 = 342, albedo condsidered to be .31 is subtracted. This is the value that makes their theory plausible with the value of 240Wm-2. There is no direct measurement of the value of .31 for albedo in all frequencies. There may be direct measurement in the visible frequencies. But not in the infrared. The graph of atmospheric absorption shows that much energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. It is sheer nonsense to use the value of albedo for all frequencies. But no scientists of this field have the intellectual capabilty to refuse this nonsense and only repeat this invalid theory. Evaluation of this science will be done from outside sources instead of merly accepting the rhetoric of this fraudulent field of scientific theory. <url> This graph is one of the rare valid graphs available on the internet. It shows the sun's radiation to be according to Planck's radiation Law. The scale at the bottom done in this fashion, is the same as doing the scale in frequency. The vertical scale is squared. The area beneath the curve is not proportional to energy. But this graph shows clearly the conformity of the solar radiation to Planck's radiation law. This shows properly that the slope is a square to the frequency. Regardless of the denial of this fact by Sir Phil of Shit and his false graphs and references. At lower temperatures the intensity maximum is much closer to also being a square to the frequency in intensity. Just another point that Sir Phil and AGW are clearly proved to be invalid in their theoretical science. Despite the capability to clearly prove this fact, they will ignore this valid fact and continue with their fraud until they meet the severe consequences which they deserve. KDeatherage" @columbiaaccidentinvestigation: "On Sep 24, 3:00 pm, <email_address> wrote:> "This graph is one of the rare valid graphs available on the internet. It shows the sun's radiation to be according to Planck's radiation Law." <url> Please read the following, as you might want to update your analysis, with the combination of the MODIS and MISR earth observing instruments, which observations are being refined and validated through aeronet. The link you provided was from September 2000, discussing the previous solar cycle and UV exposure for sunbathers (try again) the image can be found by selecting the blue text titled "they vary 100 times more" Sunbathing at Solar Max <url> "Sunbathing at Solar Max NASA scientists say solar maximum is in full swing. So, is it safe to make one last dash to the beach before the end of Northern summer? Sept. 5, 2000 For many Americans, Labor Day weekend was the last chance to hit the beach during the Summer of 2000. With autumn just around the corner and school starting around the country, droves of sunbathers spent their holiday perfecting a last-minute tan. But was it safe? After all, the Sun is near the peak of its 11-year activity cycle. There are more sunspots, solar flares and UV rays from the Sun than at any time since 1989... "The extreme ultraviolet photons that are most intense during the peak of the solar cycle aren't the same as the UV rays that give you sunburns," notes Dr. Judith Lean, a physicist at the US Naval Research Laboratory. "Sunburns come from the UV-A and UV-B bands around 300 nanometers. Extreme ultraviolet photons from the Sun are at least 10 times more energetic than UV-A and UV-B and they vary 100 times more [between solar minimum and solar maximum]. It's a good thing they're all absorbed by nitrogen and oxygen at high altitudes otherwise a day at the beach would be no fun." <url> "Analysis of MODIS-MISR calibration differences using surface albedo around AERONET sites and cloud reflectance A=2E Lyapustin a,., Y. Wanga, R. Kahn b, J. Xiong c, A. Ignatov d, R. Wolfe c, A=2E Wu e, B. Holben c, C. Bruegge b a University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, mail code 614.4, Greenbelt, MD 20771, United States b NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109, United States c NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, United States d NOAA/NESDIS, Camp Springs, MD 2074, United States e Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Lanham, MD 20706, United States Received 17 March 2006; received in revised form 26 September 2006; accepted 30 September 2006 Abstract MODIS and MISR are two Earth Observing System instruments flown onboard the Terra satellite. Their synergistic use could greatly benefit the broad user community by ensuring a global view of the Earth with high-quality products. A necessary condition for data fusion is radiometric calibration agreement between the two instruments. Earlier studies showed about 3% absolute radiometric difference between MISR and respective MODIS land bands in the visible and near-IR spectrum, which are also used in aerosol and cloud research. This study compared two surface albedo products derived from MODIS and MISR L1B data using the AERONET-based Surface Reflectance Validation Network (ASRVN). The ASRVN shows a positive MISR-MODIS albedo bias of +(0.01-0.03). Cross-sensor calibration inconsistencies were identified as a primary cause of the albedo biases. To establish an independent MODIS-MISR calibration link, top-of-atmosphere MODIS and MISR reflectances were regressed against each other over liquid water clouds. The empirical regression results have been adjusted for the differences in the respective MISR and MODIS spectral responses using radiative transfer simulations. The MISR-MODIS band gain differences for the top-of atmosphere reflectance estimated with this technique are +6.0% in the Blue, +3.3% in the Green, +2.7% in the Red, and +0.8% in the NIR band. Applying the derived values to rescale the MODIS or MISR L1B data is shown to significantly reduce the cross-sensor ASRVN surface albedo biases. An absolute calibration scale for both sensors could be established based on ndependent ground-based measurements of the surface albedo at selected AERONET sites. =A9 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: MODIS; MISR; Calibration; AERONET; Surface albedo; Cloud regression" Aeronet aerosol robotic networ <url> "AErosol RObotic NETwork) is an optical ground based aerosol monitoring network and data archive supported by NASA's Earth Observing System and expanded by federation with many non-NASA institutions. The network hardware consists of identical automatic sun- sky scanning spectral radiometers owned by national agencies and universities. Data from this collaboration provides globally distributed near real time observations of aerosol spectral optical depths, aerosol size distributions, and precipitable water in diverse aerosol regimes. The data undergo preliminary processing (real time data), reprocessing (final calibration ~6 mo. after data collection), quality assurance, archiving and distribution from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center master archive and several identical data bases maintained globally. The data provide algorithm validation of satellite aerosol retrievals and as well as characterization of aerosol properties that are unavailable from satellite sensors. The AERONET website, <url> provides access to the preliminary data, describes the program objectives, affiliations, the instrument description, data products, AERONET browser "demonstrat", research activities and personnel involved in AERONET."" @felton: "<quote> That's something you know a lot about! Actually the reference I gave earlier shows that the satellite measurements are made from 0.2-5 microns! Doesn't matter, albedo is reflected/incident, the absorbed component doesn't enter in to the calculation. Except of course that it's wavelength which is inversely proportional to frequency, and is on a log scale! > The vertical scale is squared. The vertical scale is logarithmic not 'squared'! The area under the curve is equal to the total energy in mWm^2, explicitly stated above the graph! At wavelengths above 5 microns at T ~5700K (it deviates from linearity at wavelengths below this). As shown above just about every statement you made about this graph is wrong!" @kdthrge: "<quote> You are absolutely insane. The area beneath the curve in this graph is not proportional to energy. It would be difficult to make a graph such as this since it would be difficult to fit on the page or difficult to see the detail at lower frequencies. Notice the area of the graph of the visible frequencies compared to the area of the graph of infrared. What is wrong with your incompetent and dishonest little mind, Sir Phil of Shit?? The scale at the bottom matches a scale that is done in frequency. Planck worked in frequency, since h only has any relevance when multiplied by frequency. The continuum is only in specific intervals of hv. No intermediate values. Anyone can see that since this scale at the bottom matches a scale in frequency, that a continuum does not exist in wavelength as you have stated. The logrithmic vertical scale makes each increment a square greater than the previous increment. This makes the linear slope of this graph, A SQUARE TO FREQUENCY just as I have said and which can be found in many, many references. It is only more convenient in spectroscopy to work in wavelength. Since determination of frequency is dependent upon the poper value for the velocity of light. This does not mean a damn thing. Only the value of hv is important in the determination of distribution of energy. The important thing here, is that you do not have any valid application of mathematics whatsoever for the energy distribution at low temperatures. AT lower temperatures, the intensity maximum is very nearly on the slope of a square to the frequency. You simply do not like this FACT since it puts the bulk of the earth's radiation far from the 15um band and your theory which is entirely designed for your end conclusions. That you continue with your attempt to deny this very simple and well established fact of thermodynamics only shows your innate charlatanism. YOu claim to be a scientist. YOu deny simple facts which I know are valid and can be found in many places. Yet you still only propound your rhetoric. It is possible to take direct analyses of the distribution of energy according to frequency at different temperatures instead of merely relying on your rhetorical statements. As a scientist, you must have some experimental reference to back up your claims, which you do not. Just your childish reference to an invalid little calculator and your continued demonstration of a complete lack of mathematical capabilty. KDeatherage" @kdthrge: "<quote> <url> And this reference shows that the atmosphere absorbs a considerable amount of energy of any radiation beyond 1um. Consider the logarithmic values of the energy of the absorption shown between 1 and 2 um in order to evaluate the actual amount of this energy. Notice that beginning at about 2um, some bands are completely opaque. The atmosphere is actually opaque beyond 2um. That radiation which reaches the ground is entirely absorbed and re-emited, which causes the troughs. Without full consideration for the atmospheric absorption, your supposed readings for reflected radiation are entirely meaningless and used invalidly. Albedo can only be properly used with visible and near infrared to 1um. KDeatherage" @kdthrge: "<quote> Just to teach you the actual basics of physics, energy is a quantity. Energy is registered in units such as: ergs, calories, Kcalories, Joules, electron volts, etc. A Watt per meter is not a unit of energy. It refers a quantity of enegy passing though a specific area in a unit of time. The unit of energy is the Joule. One Watt is one Joule per second. Secondly, the most basic fact of thermodynamics is that the energy distribution of blackbody, which means no reflected radiation, has a slope which is a square to frequency. At the end of the 19th century, it was very clear from experimental evidence the fact that the distribution is a square to frequency. This resulted in the Releigh radition formula,,, 8piv^2 / c^3,,, kT In this, the only variable at specific temperature is the frequency or v, as it increases the value increases as a square. The mean energy is kT. So a distribution factored over all frequencies with this weight describes the curve on a graph. The graph shows the amount of energy at each specific frequency..At any temperature the slope is still a square to the frequency. This formula works fine a low temperatures. But not at high temperatures where it predicts that the emissions of ultraviolets increasess exponentially with temperature which simple is not what the experimental data reads. In Plancks's radiation law this is solved. But only with the mean energy being,, hv / loghv/kT -1. AT low temperatures, this is simply hv / hv/kT which is hv * kT / hv,, which is simply the same as kT which in Plancks radiation law therefore is the same as the Releigh radiation law. AT higher temperatures in which kT is of a greater value to the constant of h, this is not the case and the value of the peak emissions in the ultraviolet does not increase as a square to the frequency, exactly as experimental evidence shows. The fundamental value of h, was derived by Planck by evaluating Wiens law, in which the intensity maximum increases as a direct proportion to temperature, and Stefans Law in which total energy increases as a fourth power to temperature. Both of these laws are taken directly from experimental fact. Plancks's Law and theory is based upon the concept that radiation energy only exists in whole values of h, denoted by a whole value of frequency or hv. Therefore any quantity of radiation energy is always simply a SUM of the whole values of hv which are present. There are no intermediate values of hv. The continuum of radiation energy, is whole values of hv only. h x 1,,, h x 2,,,, h x 3,,, This means explicitly there is not a continuum in wavelength, since wavelength to frequency are not directly proportional. But have an inverse relationship. Common intervals in wavelength do not match the continuum which exists in frequency of whole values of h. It is this concept of only whole values of h that was violently resisted by contempories of Planck, and would have been trodden out by the dominant and invalid academic theoretics if not for Einstein who made application and showed the validity of Planck's theory beginning what is known as modern physics and quantum theory. Einstein and Planck became close personal friends and were in agreement on theory. For a long time, the most accurate means to refine Planck's constant was with the photoelectric effect. Quantum Mechanics is based upon Neils Bohr reinterpretation of Planck's theory. Bohr attributes emission of a light quantum to the motions of the electrion and it's absorption of energy as potential energy and then release of this energy. Although this theory has been in endless failure since it's inception, the modifications to rectifiy these failures have become known as Quantum Mechanics. The theory of quantum mechanics is attributed to Bohr and Heisenberg. The most vocal opponents of this theory were Planck and Einstein and even Shrodinger. Although their voice in the theoretical world have remained ignored by the academic theorists who no longer have any base in direct experimental data. See 'Atomic Physics',, Max Born KDeatherage" @martyjmch: "<quote> A website that may help resolve some of the misconcpetions and issues here is <url> First, the blackbody spectrum (Planck curve) can be calculated and in spectral units of frequency, wavelength or wavenumber, power units of Watts or photons/sec, and for any temperature and emissivity. In-band radiance is calculated, and this will settle questions about how is radiated at specific wavelengths, frequencies, etc... Further, to see what molecules are absorbing at what wavelenghts (or frequencies), you can use the spectral calculator to simulate infrared spectra of CO2, CH4, H2O, and virtually all important atmospheric species. It computes transmittance or radiance spectra at full resolution, i.e. every absorption line of every isotope is fully resolved. With just a little effort, you can simulate any atmospheric conditions by adjusting gas concentrations, pressure, temperature and path length. In-band radiance is computed, so you don't have to integrate. As a "back of the envelope" type approach, you can plot and/or download the HITRAN data, the empirical line list on which the caculatoions are based, as well as data from other databases here, like GEISA and HITEMP. This is great for predicting and simulating atmospheric spectra. This should settle some of the things being debated here." @whata: "<quote> Great, the more CO2 absorbs an emits, the better it cools the N2 and O2 at all levels of the atmosphere. When the cooling is considered rather than the warming, a different result is obtained, and the obvious fact that absorption and radiation by CO2 and Water Vapor can far exceed the input from the sun if the conditions are right, dry air over cool ocean, for instance. Notice how wildly the AGW crowd wants global warming to be occurring, while normal people should emotionally not want any substantial climate change." @columbiaaccidentinvestigation: "On Oct 2, 9:37 am, Whata Fool <email_address> wrote:" Notice how wildly" nope, maybe you should relax a little and lighten up...." @kdthrge: "<quote> This is invalid science. Energy is a Joule, calorie, erg, electron volt. Who needs this invalid rendition of "power units of Watts or photons sec."" Energy is a quantity. A watt is one joule per second and is not a unit of energy. Who needs this ""power unit"" of your invalid calculators. All this does is create a graph in which the slope is not a square to the frequency. This hoaky science of yours is promoted because it is easy to twist into reading false conclusions for the fraud of AGW. The earths radiation is centered around 10um. This means that the quantity of energy being radiated at 15um is about 2.25 times less than the wmiller@example.net. This does not suit the false graphs of AGW, so this is distorted. This means that the energy radiated at each frquency, becomes greater as a square to the frequency, So where do your power units of "watts or photons/sec come in"??? Nowhere. A sample of the radiation field can be done in various ways. Either by the energy passing through the plane of 1 sq cm, per second, at the velocity of light (the velocity that radiation energy travels). Or it could be considered as the energy within a volume area at any specific moment of time, this energy traveling at the velocity of light but still within the specific volume area. The units of the sample can be varied. In any such sample, the relative quantity of energy at a particular frequency does not change. There is no need at all for your fraudulent and meaningless "units of power". Planck's Radiation Law is: 8pihv^3 / c^3,,, 1 / loghv/kt - 1 There is no need to change this. There is no simplification to be done with this mathematical formula. Your rendition to "units of power" is invalid. This formula reads in ergs which is a unit of energy. It may also be written: 8piv^2 / c^3,,, hv / loghv/kt - 1 ,,, since in this formula, hv / loghv/kt - 1, is the mean energy of the oscillator, or the mean energy of the distribution. But any other changes or simplifications distort the validity of this formula, since it is derived from the integral, v^4 / T, which is Stefan's Law. In Planck's theory, the particular energy at a particular frequency is a result of the probability of the electron oscillator to be at a particular energy level of hv, at it's time of emission. Thus a particular oscillator may radiate a high energy photon, such as a visible light photon, with sufficient energy to ionize molecules with lower ionization potential than the quantity of energy this photon carries. This photon with this quantity of energy, is emitted from an electron oscillator of this energy. In it's next emission, it may radiate a lower energy photon. The overall probablility of the energy levels, determines the relative energy at each frequency in the great number of molecules of any emission system and the resultant statistics. In the emission system of a gas, the molecules are continually absorbing photons of all frequencies of the continouse spectra of the infrared. Therefore, the probability of the energy level of the oscillator, is extremely dependent of the probability of the energy level of the photons that are likewise being absorbed. This is what causes the steep curve of the radiation curve to the intensity maximum, which is the most probable energy state. Your data and calculators are not valid. Suppose that you study a particular area in which water vapor content can vary day to day considerably. On some days, the atmospheric readings of the water vapor will be higher, when dew point is higher. On other days, the spectra of the water vapor will be less. But you measure total energy of the atmospheric radiation WITH A DAMN THERMOMETER. Nowhere can your assertions of greater energy returned to the surface by the water vapor be validated. Thus, you have no such experimental data to reference. Only your invalid 'calculators' based upon your invalid interpretation of Planck's Radiation Law. No experimental verification for the distribution of energy at each frequency. Theoretical science which has no basis in any valid direct science. "> This should settle some of the things being debated here"" You must be a student of Phil of Shit. You give the same reference of the invalid calculators, and attempt to impose your unsupported rhetoric. He enjoys life with
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 20, "forum_name": "alt.global-warming.20140725.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.global-warming.parquet'}